What Do We Think About Climate Change

[alanrockwood]

Guillermo,

Just out of curiosity, when did you change from being concerned about emissions, including CO2, (e.g. your post New propulsion sytems for ships) to possibly not thinking it is very important?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

just to help the readers who man not be aware of what this Executive Intelligence Review rag is





The review process would help ensure that his views are up for scrutiny by the entire scientific community, if they were accepted and widely publicized by this process then he might be able to advance his findings however publishing a interview through a political Analysis publication from Lyndon H. Larouche is hardly a stellar beginning

For God's sake. When did people start quoting Lyndon LaRouche (of all people) as some sort of authority on anything, aside from paranoid conspiracy theories? Any scientific, political or social belief systems that rely on quotes from him to bolster them are in serious trouble indeed....

[hoytedow]

Even Trotsky thought somebody was out to get him and he was right.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Boston, your patronising grand standing becomes very tiring. Do you really think you can simply answer every post with some personal attack to its author without ever addressing the content of the post? Your wisdom by Google spoils every page of this thread. It is becoming a necessity to skip every single post of yours.

Did you know that Elton Jones is homosexual? The Rollings Stones drug addicts? Paganini a total *****? Tchaicovsky another fag? Beethoven deaf? Van Gogh a dangerous madman? Would you judge their art in light of their personal shortcomings? Well YOU obviously would, but that would make you a very small person in deed, almost invisible.

Clearly in all this time this thread has been going you have shown a complete lack of proper judgement and a total absence of interest in what should be good news for all human kind, and that is that AGW is just a political stunt. Rather than showing interest in any possible hope that we in fact are NOT facing annihilation you regale submerged in every possible shred of bad news, magnifying it if at all possible beyond the paranoidal imbecility of the IPCC and the rest of the cheer squad.

For someone who's ancestors lived so close to nature, your lack of understanding of nature is flabbergasting.

You obviously have no idea at all who or what Lyndon LaRouche is. Instead of dumping all over Boston for trying to tell you, I suggest you spend five minutes googling the man and his career.

Comparing LaRouche's insanity to Beethoven's deafness or Elton John's sexuality, and associating his output with "art," is almost sublimely ridiculous. Although I suppose you could say his entire life has been performance art.... During his career, he's swung from radical, violent Marxist to radical, violent fascist. The only constants have been his ego and his paranoia. Quoting him or any of his publications or associates as an authority on anything at all is comical, and anyone who does so seriously is showing a complete lack of good sense.

And by the way: for someone who supposedly abhors personal attacks, you launch some pretty good examples yourself.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

You obviously have no idea at all who or what Lyndon LaRouche is. Instead of dumping all over Boston for trying to tell you, I suggest you spend five minutes googling the man and his career.

Troy, I did not quote LaRouche nor do I know who did. Neither do I care.
It is Boston's style that has got up my nose lately.
Even if an author is the devil personified, if he or anyone else has something to say, it is the idea posted that must be analysed not who it comes from.

That is the point of my simile.
This would be a typical Boston reply, mutatis mutandis:
"Bethoven music is good? You must be kidding, the guy was deaf!"

[Boston]

actually you did quote LaRouche when you used his publication as a reference pretending it was some form of reliable source of scientific information.

there is a avenue for presenting scientific ideas to the community and deviating from it raises some eyebrows as to why. If the quality of the information is up to par then why has it not been presented for discussion to the scientific community rather than hide from an informed debate within the scientific community in some ultra right wing rag.

the point is that without that informed debate being available for us to review we are not looking at the end result of an idea but a first draft that has yet to be checked by the community for errors and improvements.

is someone presents an idea that fundamentally changes the playing field within a particular specialized branch of science and wants to be taken seriously then why not present that idea to your colleagues within that branch of science and allow them to rebut the logic of the argument from the most informed point of view.

anyone who hides from such informed review by publishing idea in extremist rags is likely to be actively engaged in agnotology which instantly raises serious questions about the honesty of there work.

as I said
Mickey Mouse might have a great idea about nuclear science but until other nuclear scientists are given a chance to review the idea and present there findings to the public then its a bit hard for that public to develop an informed opinion.

B

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

actually you did quote LaRouche when you used his publication as a reference pretending it was some form of reliable source of scientific information.

there is a avenue for presenting scientific ideas to the community and deviating from it raises some eyebrows as to why. If the quality of the information is up to par then why has it not been presented for discussion to the scientific community rather than hide from an informed debate within the scientific community in some ultra right wing rag.

the point is that without that informed debate being available for us to review we are not looking at the end result of an idea but a first draft that has yet to be checked by the community for errors and improvements.

is someone presents an idea that fundamentally changes the playing field within a particular specialized branch of science and wants to be taken seriously then why not present that idea to your colleagues within that branch of science and allow them to rebut the logic of the argument from the most informed point of view.

anyone who hides from such informed review by publishing idea in extremist rags is likely to be actively engaged in agnotology which instantly raises serious questions about the honesty of there work.

as I said
Mickey Mouse might have a great idea about nuclear science but until other nuclear scientists are given a chance to review the idea and present there findings to the public then its a bit hard for that public to develop an informed opinion.

B

Even a broken Mickey Mouse watch is right twice a day.

[ancient kayaker]

Isn't it nice how we are all discussing climate change and whether it is a threat, a boon or quite irrelevant to humankind's future? So much nicer, cosier even, than the nuclear bomb, the Third World War and it's aftermath!

And the great thing is, we can't do a damn thing about climate change, whatever it turns out to be, whether a new ice age, thermal armaggedon or just the same old same old. Let's be perfectly honest among ourselves: if it's Nature then it's inevitable and if it's us we will never agree that it's us until it's too late let alone what to do about it. Yet we each of us argue our own point of view, invoking scientific support on both sides of the argument. Bit like sheep butting heads on the side of a precipice, when you think about it.

It's a strange species, is ours. An individual will take out life insurance so that when death arrives its survivors are supported. This is surely one of the most philanthropic things that an individual can do. Somewhat more selfishly a individual of this same species will even invest money in the hope - not the certainly - of a good return in the future.

Yet jointly that same species cannot agree to reduce emmissions, pollution, dependence on oil and the dumping of waste into the ocean to a meaningful extent for the future of it's own children.

Yeah, I heard the argument that it isn't going to happen, but there seems to be a large body of informed support for both sides. You'd think a species that would think up things like life insurance, investment in the future and invented the expression "what if" could think in terms of "Sh!t this is much too big to fool around with let's do something just to be on the safe side NOW"

Nothing is more certain than death and taxes, and they are around us all the time. What climate change if any will amount to is quite uncertain, but you can bet your insurance certificate it will be much harder to deal with the longer we wait; that's certain. Once you've fallen off the precipice ...

Here endeth my rant. I don't post on this thread often as I don't handle despair and frustration well. If an advanced alien offers me climate insurance I will take it like a shot on behalf of us all.

[hoytedow]

I burnt lots of wood today to make food for all my plants.

[Boston]

I rode the train down to my fave pub to drink a few beers and go to a movie with some friends. Ate dinner out of my garden and worked on the budget for my build. Materials list and all you know. Thing is there is always something we can do to reduce our impact and there is always someone who couldn't care less about anything but themselves. It human nature I guess to have some folks making a difference and some folks causing more than there share of damage

oh well
B

[Guillermo]

Well, in spite of all the "warming" against us and a rough and "hot" game, Spain won the World Cup!

Ohe, ohe, ohe, ohe!

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

Guillermo,

Just out of curiosity, when did you change from being concerned about emissions, including CO2, (e.g. your post New propulsion sytems for ships) to possibly not thinking it is very important?

Alan,
I'm worried about ships' sulfur and other emmissions, as well as about other forms of contamination from them, but not at all about the relatively small and not polluting CO2 emmissions. This is not in conflict with defending reduction of ships' CO2 emmissions as well as investigating on the use of other forms of energy, as it means reducing their fuel consumption and making shipping even more efficient, of course.

http://www.shippingandco2.org/reducingco2.htm

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Pericles

Incidentally, we are not here for a long time, so we may as well be here for a good time.

I drink to that!

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Boston

actually you did quote LaRouche and bla bla bla

B

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...rInterview.pdf
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. Recently retired
as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past
president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of
the Maldives Sea Level Project.
Mörner was interviewed by Associate Editor Gregory Murphy on June 6. The interview here is abridged; a
full version appeared in Executive Intelligence Review, June 22, 2007.

Can you kindly tell me when did Dr Nils-Axel Morner change his name to LaRouche?

Any relation to LaRue, the architect in Mousehunt?

[Marco1]

And as for people who want to "do something to reduce impact" Boston this is for you.
One department of our federal government, has decided to "do something to reduce our (oh so shocking) impact on....trees. So we have discovered the paperless office.
In order to (allegedly) "save" trees, we will spend a few dozen millions in scanners, new offices and centralised mailing to have all documentation on file, and so...voila...trees are safe once more.

Pity that we don't cut down native forest for paper anymore but we cut plantation timber and the more paper is used the more trees we must plant. So we will spend millions and employ hundreds to save what does not need to be saved at all.
Just like the banning of the incandescent light bulb in favour of the poisonous fluorescent useless crap.

Long live idiocy! Vote Labour or Democrat or Socialist or green, take your pick!!!